Chagos: Dirty tricks and delays

A British court again upholds the right of the Chagossian people to live in their homeland four deca

It is four decades since the Chagossian people were tricked, coerced and eventually forced into leaving their Indian Ocean islands, so that the British Government could lease the main island of Diego Garcia to the US, for use as a military base.

Today, for the third time, a British court has upheld what the Chagos islanders always knew was theirs – the right to live on their homeland.

The Chagossians' first court victory in 2000 was accepted by the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, but since then they have seen nothing but delays and dirty tricks. Firstly the Government wasted time with feasibility studies which were roundly ridiculed for their inexplicable conclusions and failure to consult the islanders. Then it resorted to Royal Prerogative powers to bypass parliament and overrule the previous decision. These secret royal orders were later quashed, and today's appeal court ruling called them an 'abuse of power'.

Today's headlines tell of victory, and the judges certainly consider the decision final - refusing permission for a further appeal to the House of Lords. But it must be hard for these islanders – who know first hand how low the Government is willing to stoop – not to wonder what it will pull out of its sleeve next.

For too long the Government has hidden behind phoney arguments against resettlement, in the knowledge that the islanders are not in a position to re-establish their lost island society without help.

Compensation settlements made in the 1980s were inadequate, mismanaged and one-sided; the security threat of a population on the outer islands is minimal; and claims that resettlement is not viable have not been backed up. Treaty obligations to the US are cited as a reason why obligations to British citizens must take second place.

This time the Government needs to take resettlement seriously, engaging in discussions with the islanders, conservation groups, and potential partners who could help develop fisheries and tourism in the islands.

The surviving islanders, who still vividly remember being rounded up, shipped off and dumped helpless on the docks of Mauritius and the Seychelles, would be devastated if the Government were to drag their suffering out even longer.

Millions of pounds have been spent trampling on the rights of these vulnerable people. Now it is time to respect the court's decision, and start pumping those resources into putting the islanders back.

Robert Bain is a London-based journalist who campaigns voluntarily for the exiled Chagos islanders

Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times